[alephnerd]

BendingSpoon isn't PE because they are not attempting a restructure to then exit out of the asset within a defined time period.

When BendingSpoon or IAC acquired an asset, it's meant to be held by them in order to augment their existing portfolio.

M&A isn't the hallmark of PE - restructuring an asset in order to exit out of it at a profit is.

The classic PE monetization strategy is to acquire an underperforming asset, restructure said asset, and then exit the asset at around 20% IRR.

BendingSpoons on the other hand is a holding company that is acquiring and consolidating stagnant but large SaaS platforms into a single mega-platform.

The economics are different as are the operational and organizational structures.

[buckle8017]

The classic PE strategy is to buy declining buy well known brands, borrow vast sums of money in the brands name, pay the PE firm huge consulting fees, and then bankrupt the acquired business.

Which isn't exactly what they seem to be doing but also isn't that far off.

[smrtinsert]

Scotts point was that these brands have already declined, and that the only thing left is a very strongly loyal subscription base. That perked my ears up for sure.

[robocat]

The classic PE monetization strategy is to take an intangible asset and mine it: The one we all see is buying a quality brandname and mining it into oblivion. Plus various accountancy tricks to move the gold into the PE coffers.

In your example "very strongly loyal subscription base" is the asset.

Fabulous article (I think evergreen through regular edits/updates): https://www.worseonpurpose.com/p/the-mechanisms-of-enshittif...

Long on business keywords; a more soulless perspective than the above article: https://ahapartners.co/thinking/goodwill-isnt-a-rounding-err...

[spenjovewkwhalo]

Thanks for that, loved the worseonpurpose article